Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Toni]

Why don’t you believe the victims are credible?

Is it because they are female? I’ve read that some of the victims are, in fact, male.

But I suppose any kid dumb enough to allow themselves to be raided can hardly have enough sense to be a good witness.

At least, for certain people

Why do you assume they are? Abusers are very good at picking those that won't be believed.

You are kind of refuting your own point here. Are they the kinds of people abusers abuse and thus credibly "abused" or aren't they?

Is this Schrodinger's abuse victim here?

At some point you have to acknowledge that most people don't have a parade of accusers against them, even public figures.

When they're otherwise insistinguishable from everyone else except for that train of accusers, there are very few explanations as to "why them in particular," which don't conclude with "because they are abusers".

The thing is there are a lot of allegations that are nothing and usually don't reach the press in the first place. Got in the local paper quite some time ago--allegations against a local entertainer. The police said it was extortion, happens all the time. They look into things but keep it quiet. Remember the Duke case? That's the typical allegation. And even when the events are real it often turns out the actual perpetrator simply looked similar to the well known person--humans are terrible eyewitnesses, an initial impression of looks like someone they recognize can easily become a memory of it being that person. (I'm not saying they are lying. There have been cases where it has been figured out how the false memories came about, yet the people still have the memory despite knowing it's impossible. False positives of threat are far less harmful than false negatives, the human mind is optimized towards false positives.)

You know what happens ALL THE TIME?

Police failing to actually investigate. My daughter was being stalked by a stranger at her relatively new apartment. It escalated to the point that this creep, who obviously was watching her, trailing her, leaving notes on her doorstep critiquing what she wore-/left some lingerie on her doorstep. I saw the notes. Hand written. I saw the lingerie. At my urging, she called the police. Who…yawned. Did not do a damn thing. Which is exactly what happened when she found a girl bruised and battered with torn panties in a bar bathroom. The bar owner who was there that night told her not to call the police. She did anyway, got the girl to the hospital. The police did NOTHING. In a small town. Just a couple of things.

Here we know the calls were made to police, to the FBI. Contemporaneously with events. There are multiple interviews with the same person, many interviews with many accusers, and other witnesses.

I understand that many are skeptical. I understand why many men, such as yourself, prefer to believe that it is just a nothing sandwich. Does not matter that children were raped. It was all so long ago. Some of them hit some money. Just like Michael Jackson’s victims, but you believe them, right? What Trump did to Ivanna wasn’t rape because marital rape was not a criminal offense at that time in that state. Marital rape has only been illegal in all 50 states since 1993 and wasn’t a criminal offense in any state until 1978. It’s still not prosecuted as ‘real’ rape all of the time. If she didn’t want it, she shouldn’t have married him, right? What’s a little slap and tickle ( heavy on the slap, and with closed fists) between an old married couple?

You worship white male privilege and the wealthy.

 

[Elixir]

images in the files are not proof, they are only a starting point.

That’s the optimistic view. In my view, there won’t be any actual “starting” until next January, if/when Dem majorities, or at least a Dem House, is actually seated.
If it comes to pass, it will be despite the best criminal efforts of the fascists in the current administration and SCOTUS.

 

[bilby]

You could have faked video even before. It just would have been a lot harder.

Mate, people saw video of a giant lizard stomping on Tokyo back in 1954, when only governments owned computers, and no computer could manipulate pictures. It didn't require government level funding, nor was it footage of a real event (at least, it seems unlikely to me that it was a real event). All you need is some skilled model makers, and a bloke in a rubber dinosaur suit.

I have seen the Ruhr Dams destroyed by bouncing bombs (a real event, but not one that was filmed at the time). I have seen flying saucers attack the world's greatest landmarks (although why an alien race would target the Pyramids is as much a mystery as why their computers are susceptible to MS Windows malware). I have seen space battles in galaxies far, far away, with planet destroying moons space stations being destroyed by small fighters armed with proton torpedos. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Basically anything can be faked on video, and with a degree of realism that depends mostly on the viewers' prejudices, and partly on your SFX budget.

At every point since the first audiences screamed when a monochrome film of a railway locomotive heading straight towards them was shown in a cinema, people have declared that now we can make fakes too good to spot, and that truth is going to die.

They would probably have been right, if only truth had ever been available to begin with. "The camera never lies" was untrue practically from day one.